What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Britain #3
A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire 1776-2000
Simon Schama’s dramatic, broad-ranging, and immensely readable epic history of Britain reaches its triumphant conclusion in this third and final volume, which stretches from the American Revolution to the present.
576 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2002
61 people are currently reading
2078 people want to read
About the author
Simon Schama
80 books1,042 followersSir Simon Michael Schama is an English historian and television presenter. He specialises in art history, Dutch history, Jewish history, and French history. He is a Professor of History and Art History at Columbia University.
Schama first came to public attention with his history of the French Revolution titled Citizens, published in 1989. He is also known for writing and hosting the 15-part BBC television documentary series A History of Britain (2000—2002), as well as other documentary series such as The American Future: A History (2008) and The Story of the Jews (2013).
Schama was knighted in the 2018 Queen's Birthday Honours List.
Schama first came to public attention with his history of the French Revolution titled Citizens, published in 1989. He is also known for writing and hosting the 15-part BBC television documentary series A History of Britain (2000—2002), as well as other documentary series such as The American Future: A History (2008) and The Story of the Jews (2013).
Schama was knighted in the 2018 Queen's Birthday Honours List.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews
September 19, 2022
I thought this third volume of Simon Schama’s History of Britain would be the one I’d enjoy the most, after all I’d lived through a small part of it and surely I knew more about the more recent history of this sceptred isle than the years covered in the earlier volumes. But no, in truth I found this volume to be rather dull in comparison. Maybe it’s the way the author decided to tell the tale: i.e.by by tracking the timeline through his focus on a small number of influential characters? Or perhaps it was the very fact that I already knew a good part of the story? Or could it be that the early volumes had just covered more colourful periods in our history? A bit of all three, I think.
The first half of this book seemed to drag horribly as social changes, the rise of women’s rights movements and the evolution of the role of the Royal Family were explored largely through the writings of Wordsworth and other notable scribblers. In the second half, things livened up a bit as big chunks describing the reign of Queen Victoria and the political life of Winston Churchill dominated the text. I did like the way the author off-set Churchill’s period of influence with sections on George Orwell. The two were obviously politically miles apart, but they were both outspoken orators of uncomfortable truths. I think this was the section of the book that worked best.
As I’ve found on numerous occasions when listening to these volumes, some key moments of history seem to have hitherto passed me by. For example, I’d previously known nothing of the Seige of Lucknow (1857) or the Great Famine in India (1876-78). I also was reminded of the enormous scale of the British Empire at it’s peak - in 1913 23% of the worlds population were under British rule. A staggering fact but one undermined by the knowledge that in achieving this level of control and influence the treatment of many native inhabitants was far from acceptable!
As I came close to the end I began to notice how some sections were skimpy in the extreme. For example, WW1 was barely covered - although WW2 was granted more space – and all events after 1945 were virtually skipped over. The establishment of the Welfare State was touched on as were the Thatcher years (dismissively) but suddenly Shama was winding it all up with his reflections on where Britain goes next.
The body of work comprised in these three volumes is staggering and I’ve gained a great deal from working through them. I highly recommend these books (and/or the BBC television series that accompanied their release) to anyone interested in exploring the history of this island.
The first half of this book seemed to drag horribly as social changes, the rise of women’s rights movements and the evolution of the role of the Royal Family were explored largely through the writings of Wordsworth and other notable scribblers. In the second half, things livened up a bit as big chunks describing the reign of Queen Victoria and the political life of Winston Churchill dominated the text. I did like the way the author off-set Churchill’s period of influence with sections on George Orwell. The two were obviously politically miles apart, but they were both outspoken orators of uncomfortable truths. I think this was the section of the book that worked best.
As I’ve found on numerous occasions when listening to these volumes, some key moments of history seem to have hitherto passed me by. For example, I’d previously known nothing of the Seige of Lucknow (1857) or the Great Famine in India (1876-78). I also was reminded of the enormous scale of the British Empire at it’s peak - in 1913 23% of the worlds population were under British rule. A staggering fact but one undermined by the knowledge that in achieving this level of control and influence the treatment of many native inhabitants was far from acceptable!
As I came close to the end I began to notice how some sections were skimpy in the extreme. For example, WW1 was barely covered - although WW2 was granted more space – and all events after 1945 were virtually skipped over. The establishment of the Welfare State was touched on as were the Thatcher years (dismissively) but suddenly Shama was winding it all up with his reflections on where Britain goes next.
The body of work comprised in these three volumes is staggering and I’ve gained a great deal from working through them. I highly recommend these books (and/or the BBC television series that accompanied their release) to anyone interested in exploring the history of this island.
November 23, 2014
-Repaso histórico muy peculiar.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Tercer libro de la serie del autor dedicado a la historia de Gran Bretaña (que no del Imperio Británico estrictamente hablando), que se ocupa del periodo entre 1776 y 2000.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Tercer libro de la serie del autor dedicado a la historia de Gran Bretaña (que no del Imperio Británico estrictamente hablando), que se ocupa del periodo entre 1776 y 2000.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
March 15, 2019
Simon Schama is a rebel par excellence. His disclaimer in the beginning of the book best sums up the quirkiness of the ride that readers should expect to take. He warns that his audience should not expect odes to Sir Robert Peel, the great Parliamentarian who came to define liberal politics or Reginald Maudling a towering figure in the Post War Britain. Schama is a hipster-historian. He finds Thomas Bewick, a natural history author, a romantic, and an engraver a better representative to some important trends in Britain's late years of the 18th Century. He is obsessed with poets and writers. For a study of Chartism, he looks at Elizabeth Gaskell and for Victorian Morality at Thomas Carlyle while with a sleeve picking up the affinity to Great Heroes. While the ruffian scorns at academia for discarding Great Men, Schama precisely revives them. Lovers of biographies should rejoice to the details that Schama is willing to disclose on the lives of William Hazlitt, Trevelyan, Churchill, and George Orwell. A non-British who deserves an honorary mention in this list is Rousseau a true maker of the modern world. Economic history seems to limp somewhere in the background while cultural history revels under the spotlight. This book is an enjoyable ride because of how intimate Schama is with it.This is not the history of Britain but 'his' history of Britain. Schama hides no facts about the brutal involvement of Britain in Ireland and India and all the forces that exacerbated it and stayed silent. But rising above all stories and heroes, stands high the historian and how he came to master his material. He seems to a lover of history like me - omniscient.
July 24, 2017
I did not care for this final volume as much as for the first two. The author spent a lot of time on historical figures, such as poets and novelists, that were of little interest to me.
At the same time he devoted no mention whatever to the work of the two most important Englishmen who ever lived, Newton and Charles Darwin, based on their contributions to science.
He does a good job on Churchill who is probably the third most important Englishman in world history, so that is something at least. Newton and Darwin explained the world we live in and Churchill saved it.
The bottom line here is the whole series is well worth reading.
Read again July 2017. This time through I was especially struck by the preposterous nature of the British government starting with Queen Victoria when all role of any substance for the monarch and the house of lords was ended. Why be so silly as to retain this absolutely silly ceremonial role playing. They go through this meaningless act now for nothing but the tourist trade , or something.
At the same time he devoted no mention whatever to the work of the two most important Englishmen who ever lived, Newton and Charles Darwin, based on their contributions to science.
He does a good job on Churchill who is probably the third most important Englishman in world history, so that is something at least. Newton and Darwin explained the world we live in and Churchill saved it.
The bottom line here is the whole series is well worth reading.
Read again July 2017. This time through I was especially struck by the preposterous nature of the British government starting with Queen Victoria when all role of any substance for the monarch and the house of lords was ended. Why be so silly as to retain this absolutely silly ceremonial role playing. They go through this meaningless act now for nothing but the tourist trade , or something.
November 4, 2012
In the context of the entire history of Britain, I suppose the period 1776-2000 is, very much, about the "fate of empire" — building it up and then tearing it down — and Schama does spend a considerable amount of time on India in this book. But more than battles and occupations, it catalogs the building up and tearing down of different streams of British (mostly English) political and some forms of cultural thought. It's a tasting plate of various bits of each generation, in a vaguely though not entirely, chronological fashion, sometimes sampling writers (either of poetry, fiction or non-fiction, but always with a common interest in societal criticism), sometimes politicians and sometimes military or royal figures.
Schama tells the story as if to an audience already familiar with the main events of English history. He assumes the reader knows their wars, their kings and queens, their prime ministers, technological advances and major calamities — and then, for the most part, he glosses these events with the spins given them by their literary contemporaries.
He spends a lot of time on late 18th/early 19th century revolutionaries and the pastoral idealists many evolved into. He talks of Wollstonecraft and the "Rights of Women" and other writers and thinkers who carried related, early torches, pioneering human rights. He dallies with Queen Victoria and her dichotomies — Empress, politician-in-chief, subservient wife. He tells the story of the coming of the modern era largely through Winston Churchill, from the late 1890s though World War II (with a heaping side dish of Orwell).
1945 to 2000 is largely brushed over, but for a few interesting generalizations and insights into the rapid twists and turns of the evolution of the British "Welfare State" and privatization. His tone changes markedly once he starts talking about the era during which (presumably) he was alive and living through the history.
It's a long book, but there is much he leaves out or treats only quickly… colonization outside of India, Northern Ireland in the 20th century, 19th century British Socialism (and its effects on the 20th century), Thatcher, the arts outside of literature, and the art of the 20th century…
Granted I'm used to tellings that view history more through the lens of technological and artistic advancements (e.g., how industrial revolution era weaving technology lead to the computer and changed everything). That is a style I relate to more (yay, James Burke!), but this was an interesting book nonetheless. The 19th century artists and cultural critics who I think are so important, are barely mentioned (Ruskin gets a smidge of air time, William Morris and George Elliot are named-dropped only incidentally — though Julia Margaret Cameron does get a nice little section).
I'm not really in deep enough with the politics and philosophers of the time and place to have much of an opinion outside what Schama tells me, so I can't really comment on his slant or his takeaways, beyond saying they are interesting and appear reasonably equitable, for the most part.
Schama tells the story as if to an audience already familiar with the main events of English history. He assumes the reader knows their wars, their kings and queens, their prime ministers, technological advances and major calamities — and then, for the most part, he glosses these events with the spins given them by their literary contemporaries.
He spends a lot of time on late 18th/early 19th century revolutionaries and the pastoral idealists many evolved into. He talks of Wollstonecraft and the "Rights of Women" and other writers and thinkers who carried related, early torches, pioneering human rights. He dallies with Queen Victoria and her dichotomies — Empress, politician-in-chief, subservient wife. He tells the story of the coming of the modern era largely through Winston Churchill, from the late 1890s though World War II (with a heaping side dish of Orwell).
1945 to 2000 is largely brushed over, but for a few interesting generalizations and insights into the rapid twists and turns of the evolution of the British "Welfare State" and privatization. His tone changes markedly once he starts talking about the era during which (presumably) he was alive and living through the history.
It's a long book, but there is much he leaves out or treats only quickly… colonization outside of India, Northern Ireland in the 20th century, 19th century British Socialism (and its effects on the 20th century), Thatcher, the arts outside of literature, and the art of the 20th century…
Granted I'm used to tellings that view history more through the lens of technological and artistic advancements (e.g., how industrial revolution era weaving technology lead to the computer and changed everything). That is a style I relate to more (yay, James Burke!), but this was an interesting book nonetheless. The 19th century artists and cultural critics who I think are so important, are barely mentioned (Ruskin gets a smidge of air time, William Morris and George Elliot are named-dropped only incidentally — though Julia Margaret Cameron does get a nice little section).
I'm not really in deep enough with the politics and philosophers of the time and place to have much of an opinion outside what Schama tells me, so I can't really comment on his slant or his takeaways, beyond saying they are interesting and appear reasonably equitable, for the most part.
December 22, 2025
I feel like Schama's History of Britain has kind of been forgotten twenty-five years on, but it really shouldn't be.
Whilst never taking any prior knowledge for granted, Schama is never patronising. He has enough faith in the reader to throw some properly long sentences at you, which is entirely warranted given how much of a conversational flow there is to the writing and how much enthusiasm jumps off the page. Some reviews I've seen slate this volume for being for not providing a systematic overview and while it is undeniably patchy in places (post war Britain gets under 20 pages whereas 1776-1794 gets about 50) I think that misses the point. This is general history as provocative, and unashamedly selective, narrative and it does that perfectly. Schama combines some brilliant potted biographies (from Mary Wollstonecraft and Elizabeth Gatrell to Queen Victoria and Winston Churchill) with concise general socio-economic tapestry weaving really well and blends the two with some really elegant thematic arguments.
Inevitably the coda reflecting on devolution and Britain's place in Europe is a product of its time, and Schama's peroration that Britain's legacy is its unique blend of social justice with the pursuit of liberty screams Blairite, but I don't think that takes anything away from this.
Whilst never taking any prior knowledge for granted, Schama is never patronising. He has enough faith in the reader to throw some properly long sentences at you, which is entirely warranted given how much of a conversational flow there is to the writing and how much enthusiasm jumps off the page. Some reviews I've seen slate this volume for being for not providing a systematic overview and while it is undeniably patchy in places (post war Britain gets under 20 pages whereas 1776-1794 gets about 50) I think that misses the point. This is general history as provocative, and unashamedly selective, narrative and it does that perfectly. Schama combines some brilliant potted biographies (from Mary Wollstonecraft and Elizabeth Gatrell to Queen Victoria and Winston Churchill) with concise general socio-economic tapestry weaving really well and blends the two with some really elegant thematic arguments.
Inevitably the coda reflecting on devolution and Britain's place in Europe is a product of its time, and Schama's peroration that Britain's legacy is its unique blend of social justice with the pursuit of liberty screams Blairite, but I don't think that takes anything away from this.
December 2, 2021
I found this volume of the trilogy the least satisfying - seemed a bit rushed - then I discovered I’d downloaded an abridged version by mistake. I will listen to the full one because I want the full story. However the abridged version still has much to commend it. Schama takes key themes - rise and fall of empire, rise and fall of the Labour Party and the welfare state, universal suffrage, rise and possible fall of the United Kingdom- and links the 19th and 20th century chronology through those themes. As ever he takes a balanced approach - not without judgement but largely without prejudice. It’s fascinating. I thoroughly recommend the trilogy.
July 11, 2022
Third and final part of Simon Schama's history of Britain. As with the other volumes he often looks at it through a literary or cultural perspective as much as a traditional politic0-historical one, which makes it very accessible to the general reader. Some people don't really like him, but I remember watching the TV series that the books are based on, and very much enjoyed the way he presented it. It's taken me a while to go through all three but I can easily see myself reading them again.
July 14, 2022
Broken history told through scattered mini-biographies.
The third and final volume of Schama's "A History of Britain" limps to the end with a disjointed 150 year history that isn't really a history at all -- rather it's a series of mini-biographies of personalities that are from the relevant time period but only loosely connected to the events themselves.
The Napoleonic Wars are barely touched on except insofar as we get a little mini-biography of Rousseau. We get an EXTENDED biography of Mary Wolstoncraft (like, way way too long) in what is, I suppose, an attempt to equate her with the travails of women and the gradual rise of proto-feminist/suffrage thought in Britain during the Victorian era -- but it's way too specific to Wolstoncraft herself to be of real utility. We also get short little biographies of John Stuart Mill, and Jeremy Bentham, and (more appropriately) Lloyd George and Churchill. Other figures like Gandhi pass through the narrative, but only a select few get the deep dive biographical treatment from Schama.
The Churchill biography dominates the latter half of the book which is mostly appropriate but it's also frustrating. While Schama warns the reader not to expect a traditional narrative history, his approach of tacking together semi-random biographies that never connect themselves to the actual historical facts/narrative reeks of a somewhat slapdash effort.
Overall, this final volume is the least coherently structured, the least well-argued, and the least satisfying. Much like the Empire it is designed to chronicle, it goes out with a whimper, rather than a bang.
The third and final volume of Schama's "A History of Britain" limps to the end with a disjointed 150 year history that isn't really a history at all -- rather it's a series of mini-biographies of personalities that are from the relevant time period but only loosely connected to the events themselves.
The Napoleonic Wars are barely touched on except insofar as we get a little mini-biography of Rousseau. We get an EXTENDED biography of Mary Wolstoncraft (like, way way too long) in what is, I suppose, an attempt to equate her with the travails of women and the gradual rise of proto-feminist/suffrage thought in Britain during the Victorian era -- but it's way too specific to Wolstoncraft herself to be of real utility. We also get short little biographies of John Stuart Mill, and Jeremy Bentham, and (more appropriately) Lloyd George and Churchill. Other figures like Gandhi pass through the narrative, but only a select few get the deep dive biographical treatment from Schama.
The Churchill biography dominates the latter half of the book which is mostly appropriate but it's also frustrating. While Schama warns the reader not to expect a traditional narrative history, his approach of tacking together semi-random biographies that never connect themselves to the actual historical facts/narrative reeks of a somewhat slapdash effort.
Overall, this final volume is the least coherently structured, the least well-argued, and the least satisfying. Much like the Empire it is designed to chronicle, it goes out with a whimper, rather than a bang.
September 29, 2014
At least I have come to the end of Simon Schama's three volume millenial history of Britain. I always suspected that I might enjoy the final volume more than the preceding two, perhaps because I was 'in it' as it were. However, reading it was like being on one of those theme park roller coasters which jerks you along, zooms, changes direction suddenly, goes slowly for reasons you don't understand, occasionally gives you grand views or unusual close-ups.
I might have got on better with more chapters but perhaps the idea was to align with the TV series I have never seen. It was pretty clever the way things were linked together and I thought the marriage of looking at individual lives (Victoria, Orwell, Churchill, the Indian Viceroy who lolled in his chair like some neo-Roman but who actually had severe haemmorhoids) in some detail alongside grand affairs of state was carried off pretty well.
I was glad I had read the earlier volumes as I did come away with more of a sense of why Britain is as she is (or why Schama thinks Britain is as Schama thinks she is anyway) Again the illustrations added to the book and of course, for this period, contemporary photographs could be used, sometimes to devastating effect - for example the starving Indians.
I might have got on better with more chapters but perhaps the idea was to align with the TV series I have never seen. It was pretty clever the way things were linked together and I thought the marriage of looking at individual lives (Victoria, Orwell, Churchill, the Indian Viceroy who lolled in his chair like some neo-Roman but who actually had severe haemmorhoids) in some detail alongside grand affairs of state was carried off pretty well.
I was glad I had read the earlier volumes as I did come away with more of a sense of why Britain is as she is (or why Schama thinks Britain is as Schama thinks she is anyway) Again the illustrations added to the book and of course, for this period, contemporary photographs could be used, sometimes to devastating effect - for example the starving Indians.
November 12, 2021
Entertaining and fast-flowing as expected from the previous installments. Again, the focus is on great men (the suffragettes get a brief mention), but here perhaps even more pronouncedly on just Churchill. Winston takes about a third of the audiobook. Also, the book practically ends with the 1940s. Events after WWII get 37 minutes out of the 23+ hours, so the 1776-2000 in the title is misleading. Luckily there are good popular books out there on more recent British history.
Read
September 5, 2024I read Simon Schama’s three volume history of Britain in an attempt to get a basic grasp of the country’s history in advance of my big move to the country (didn’t quite finish before I got here though). Though I have forgotten most of it the first two volumes were pretty good - a somewhat balanced crash course through English history (with the occasional reference to Scotland - and essentially none to Wales, with Ireland only really featuring when the English are oppressing it - so much for ‘British’ history).
I wasn’t so enthused about volume three:
• The scope of the book expands drastically once the British empire gets underway, and it gets pretty difficult to follow events across multiple continents which are not always presented in a sensical way. Sometimes it feels like Schama has missed important bits - you’ll occasionally pick up somewhere in India with no idea how you got there - it’s all a bit confusing.
• In his intro Schama declares that he is going to approach volume three by reference to certain themes and ideas (paraphrasing here I read this months ago), which apparently translates to an inordinate amount of time devoted to whatever Churchill and/or Orwell happens to be up at at any given moment. Much like the continent hopping mentioned above, this creative (?) framing of historical development through the lives of particular individuals comes at the expense of a basic chronological narrative, and is a far cry from the simpler and more effective structure of the preceding books. I also just don’t understand the obsession with Churchill - he feels shoehorned into a bunch of sections.
I wasn’t so enthused about volume three:
• The scope of the book expands drastically once the British empire gets underway, and it gets pretty difficult to follow events across multiple continents which are not always presented in a sensical way. Sometimes it feels like Schama has missed important bits - you’ll occasionally pick up somewhere in India with no idea how you got there - it’s all a bit confusing.
• In his intro Schama declares that he is going to approach volume three by reference to certain themes and ideas (paraphrasing here I read this months ago), which apparently translates to an inordinate amount of time devoted to whatever Churchill and/or Orwell happens to be up at at any given moment. Much like the continent hopping mentioned above, this creative (?) framing of historical development through the lives of particular individuals comes at the expense of a basic chronological narrative, and is a far cry from the simpler and more effective structure of the preceding books. I also just don’t understand the obsession with Churchill - he feels shoehorned into a bunch of sections.
July 23, 2022
The final volume in this series covers the time from the American Revolution to the turn of the millenium. As usual, some parts were more, some less interesting, and a lot of depth is lost trying to condense almost two and a half centuries into a few hundred pages, but it was a decent historical overview.
August 26, 2024
Weakest one in the series. The majority is about Churchill sadly the rest was glossed over. Still worth the read though.
January 16, 2026
I found the third in Schama's series informative and entertaining and easy to read. I learnt a lot of things I knew nothing about and discovered more about topics I already had some knowledge of. The three 'History of Britain' books are well worth reading.
July 30, 2012
Simon Schama ends his narrative history of Britain with this third volume, ‘The Fate of Empire’, covering the era 1776 to the millennium. This final volume is in itself a five star work; ending an overall five star series.
At one point Schama recounts the young Churchill reading Macaulay and describing this historian as: “The epitome of what a historian should be: an engaged citizen, a public teacher for the times, and not least, an unapologetic best-seller.” Hmm. Is this at all tongue in cheek describing at once Macaulay, the future Churchill and of course Schama himself?
In this volume Schama is at his best recounting events from an oblique perspective, utilising throughout the British literary giants of the day to try to illustrate the growth of a distinct British identity as the island nation’s empire declines from its peak. With the American Independence and the French Revolution Britain had to follow or evolve and the internal conflict is illustrated through Coleridge and Wordsworth. The industrial revolution had left a changed workforce and a society that needed a voice, which Schama illustrates with a very personal account of Victoria leading in to the Edwardian suffragettes and growth of the labour movement using Shaw and H.G.Wells. Churchill provides enough literary reference of his own to cover two world wars but the extended reference to George Orwell and his seeming contradictions are added to brilliant effect to highlight the struggle between patriotic war effort and domestic socio-political upheaval.
I finished this after watching Danny Boyle’s eccentric and quirky Olympic opening ceremony, and whilst I am not suggesting that Schama’s history is as off the wall as that, it made me reflect on how Schama also looks to describe an event using and often less used character. The seeds of a ‘British revolution’ and the growth of a conservationist conscience are combined in the works of Newcastle’s Thomas Bewick whose etchings hid a social comment whilst he debated the need for change in the back rooms of ‘The Blackie Boy’ pub - it’s still there, I’ve drank there often and had no idea. Women’s emancipation tied to the French Revolution are seen through Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley’s mother, and the Crimean War uses Mary Seacole rather than the more usual Florence Nightingale.
To cover the whole of British history in under 2000 pages is always going to be difficult given that Britain once held such a prominent position in world events. The author has to be selective and concentrate on how each period shaped the next using a thematic style throughout. Schama achieves this using his background in art and is particularly effective when using literary characters in the later periods. As in his TV programs he can be occasionally irritating and his usually fluid style sometimes lapses into overly clever and confusing syntax. These are minor criticisms. If you want a broad-brush but effective introduction to this subject then I recommend.
At one point Schama recounts the young Churchill reading Macaulay and describing this historian as: “The epitome of what a historian should be: an engaged citizen, a public teacher for the times, and not least, an unapologetic best-seller.” Hmm. Is this at all tongue in cheek describing at once Macaulay, the future Churchill and of course Schama himself?
In this volume Schama is at his best recounting events from an oblique perspective, utilising throughout the British literary giants of the day to try to illustrate the growth of a distinct British identity as the island nation’s empire declines from its peak. With the American Independence and the French Revolution Britain had to follow or evolve and the internal conflict is illustrated through Coleridge and Wordsworth. The industrial revolution had left a changed workforce and a society that needed a voice, which Schama illustrates with a very personal account of Victoria leading in to the Edwardian suffragettes and growth of the labour movement using Shaw and H.G.Wells. Churchill provides enough literary reference of his own to cover two world wars but the extended reference to George Orwell and his seeming contradictions are added to brilliant effect to highlight the struggle between patriotic war effort and domestic socio-political upheaval.
I finished this after watching Danny Boyle’s eccentric and quirky Olympic opening ceremony, and whilst I am not suggesting that Schama’s history is as off the wall as that, it made me reflect on how Schama also looks to describe an event using and often less used character. The seeds of a ‘British revolution’ and the growth of a conservationist conscience are combined in the works of Newcastle’s Thomas Bewick whose etchings hid a social comment whilst he debated the need for change in the back rooms of ‘The Blackie Boy’ pub - it’s still there, I’ve drank there often and had no idea. Women’s emancipation tied to the French Revolution are seen through Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley’s mother, and the Crimean War uses Mary Seacole rather than the more usual Florence Nightingale.
To cover the whole of British history in under 2000 pages is always going to be difficult given that Britain once held such a prominent position in world events. The author has to be selective and concentrate on how each period shaped the next using a thematic style throughout. Schama achieves this using his background in art and is particularly effective when using literary characters in the later periods. As in his TV programs he can be occasionally irritating and his usually fluid style sometimes lapses into overly clever and confusing syntax. These are minor criticisms. If you want a broad-brush but effective introduction to this subject then I recommend.
March 22, 2018
Of the three volumes of A History of Britain, this one, for me, is easily the most interesting. Simon Schama's approach through all three has been to avoid a chronology of events and focus instead on themes and especially people. In this volume, and the title is a clue, the primary focus is around empire, which extends to include Britain and Ireland as a nation. Links are made between the Irish potato famine, the Scottish clearances and the famines of India. Simon Schama explores the motivations of the political elites in these scenarios, which, to modern minds, can seem incomprehensible, even unforgivable. There's little of Niall Ferguson's exploration of the counter-factual of the British in India, much more of how India was exploited to the benefit of Britain (an example might be the establishment of the railways to improve the economy of India for years to come, or, arguably, to allow food exports to Britain and troops to be moved more efficiently).
In the latter part of the book, Churchill understandably features prominently. The great, flawed, politician with his belief that the empire would outlast the post WW2 period, but who also was pivotal in guiding the country away from appeasement of Hitler and the likely consequences for Britain as some kind of subsidiary state.
The the whole topic of empire is often treated emotively, with anything from fond nostalgia to abhorrence. Simon Schama presents a critical and largely unsentimental view. Definitely worth a read!
In the latter part of the book, Churchill understandably features prominently. The great, flawed, politician with his belief that the empire would outlast the post WW2 period, but who also was pivotal in guiding the country away from appeasement of Hitler and the likely consequences for Britain as some kind of subsidiary state.
The the whole topic of empire is often treated emotively, with anything from fond nostalgia to abhorrence. Simon Schama presents a critical and largely unsentimental view. Definitely worth a read!
August 6, 2009
Vol. 1 - quite dull. Learned that the Brits loved to slaughter each other.
Vol. 2 - getting better. Found out how tough it is to create a democracy.
Vol. 3 - This is Schamas at his best. Finally he is writing with aplomb, and I appreciate how he tries to make women a central part of the story as much as possible - given that usually history is written from the perspective of the male!
Vol. 2 - getting better. Found out how tough it is to create a democracy.
Vol. 3 - This is Schamas at his best. Finally he is writing with aplomb, and I appreciate how he tries to make women a central part of the story as much as possible - given that usually history is written from the perspective of the male!
February 5, 2015
I found this, the third in the series, most enjoyable and engaging. I was very happy with the series as a whole and appreciated the wealth of information in its pages.
February 26, 2026
There is undeniable courage in the specificity of this book. Here is a Sweep of History, 224 years in 400 pages, and damned if it doesn't make bold choices: a focus on the naturalist illustrators as 'progressive' 'patriots', an account of the evolution of Whiggish historicism in the Raj, a hop over even the cursory details of the First World War. Schama could've so easily got stuck in the mud; he comes out light-footed—if dirtied from overeager excursions into Revolutionary France-adjacent feminism and territorial consolidation in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. What emerges is a frolicking tapestry—willing to merge Disraeli-ite parson's green sentimentalism with bleak accounts of the drab graves of malnourished children in County Mayo; a literary feel of cultural and economic turmoil that somehow remains grounded. Nothing was more fitting than this book being backended by the dual historiography of Orwell-Churchill; out comes a near-oxymoron: 'Tory Socialism', a tansmogrified belief in a progress situated beyond the brow of the ploughed hill, under the English Oak, within the nestled hamlet.
It's a political perspective that I don't quite share. This is by no means an attack on Schama's 'objectivity'; to borrow Dworkin on Hart: any attempt at description of a complex system (Law, Britain) necessarily dabbles in normativity through descriptive selection and framing. I mean more that Schama positions the movement of Britain as an 'aufheben' without any uplift. His selection of calamities and persistent poverty paint potent pictures of a cycle of unacceptable power-relations—leading to cultural whiplash, into political change. Left underexplored is the genuine, if garishly Whiggish, consistent movement on e.g.: sanitation, child poverty, violent crime, often driven by the very same Victorian or Youngian moralists and capitalists Schama is keen to undermine. We are witness to countless famines, destitute ramblers, blackened heaths. And then at undefined points these calamities seem to stop or soften. The missing element is the 'How'? A steely focus on the down-and-out and their travails (broken only by political profiles), as necessary and heartbreaking as it is, can completely miss the movement of average wellbeing markers; the wood for the trees. And it seeps through this illustration—of Britain as a body politic slowly learning not to ignore its underworld, slowly learning progressive pragmatism—that this 'progress' people so desire is automatic, self-perpetuating, and that all is left is for the culture, the politics, to squabble over the distribution of these rewards. Missing in action is that great fin de siecle invention: the engine of prosperity—cultural and economic. Schama paints the British progressive dialectic and its never-ending 'resolution' without stopping to recognise that the way in which we have moved is, in fact, forward—and without the willingness to accept that this directionality is driven by the same force that dislocates, that urbanises, that brings about periods of dire discomfort, death, squalor: Schumpeterian creative destruction. 18th century Britain created and then incubated an engine of almost unimaginable prosperity. The sometimes temporary, sometimes permanent, dislocation this movement brings is a necessary and unfortunate corollary. The ugliest of a world of ugly tradeoffs. Romantic calls to Celtic roots, to Rousseauian nature, remind us that we are human; that we are not and cannot be mere cogs, that we should endeavour to commune and philanthropise and feel. But it cannot be allowed to swallow the pride of a political, economic, industrial and cultural elite that literally birthed the Modern World. Call Trevelyan cruel as he declares that Western Ireland needed weaning off the potatato, sneer at Arthur Young's insistence that rural community must give way to parcelled enclosure of commercial farmland. It doesn't make either of them any less right. Modern British history often feels like an attempted moderation of Victorian zeal that has quite simply Gone Too Far. Schama is probably the best writer of this cohort. What we require is a recognition of the brutal, but correct, logic birthed of Lancastrian industrialism: an economy, an empire, thrives on the strength of its best, which eats into the original, traditional, livelihoods of its weakest. This is uncomfortable rather than evil. The net result is in fact pretty miraculous.
It's a political perspective that I don't quite share. This is by no means an attack on Schama's 'objectivity'; to borrow Dworkin on Hart: any attempt at description of a complex system (Law, Britain) necessarily dabbles in normativity through descriptive selection and framing. I mean more that Schama positions the movement of Britain as an 'aufheben' without any uplift. His selection of calamities and persistent poverty paint potent pictures of a cycle of unacceptable power-relations—leading to cultural whiplash, into political change. Left underexplored is the genuine, if garishly Whiggish, consistent movement on e.g.: sanitation, child poverty, violent crime, often driven by the very same Victorian or Youngian moralists and capitalists Schama is keen to undermine. We are witness to countless famines, destitute ramblers, blackened heaths. And then at undefined points these calamities seem to stop or soften. The missing element is the 'How'? A steely focus on the down-and-out and their travails (broken only by political profiles), as necessary and heartbreaking as it is, can completely miss the movement of average wellbeing markers; the wood for the trees. And it seeps through this illustration—of Britain as a body politic slowly learning not to ignore its underworld, slowly learning progressive pragmatism—that this 'progress' people so desire is automatic, self-perpetuating, and that all is left is for the culture, the politics, to squabble over the distribution of these rewards. Missing in action is that great fin de siecle invention: the engine of prosperity—cultural and economic. Schama paints the British progressive dialectic and its never-ending 'resolution' without stopping to recognise that the way in which we have moved is, in fact, forward—and without the willingness to accept that this directionality is driven by the same force that dislocates, that urbanises, that brings about periods of dire discomfort, death, squalor: Schumpeterian creative destruction. 18th century Britain created and then incubated an engine of almost unimaginable prosperity. The sometimes temporary, sometimes permanent, dislocation this movement brings is a necessary and unfortunate corollary. The ugliest of a world of ugly tradeoffs. Romantic calls to Celtic roots, to Rousseauian nature, remind us that we are human; that we are not and cannot be mere cogs, that we should endeavour to commune and philanthropise and feel. But it cannot be allowed to swallow the pride of a political, economic, industrial and cultural elite that literally birthed the Modern World. Call Trevelyan cruel as he declares that Western Ireland needed weaning off the potatato, sneer at Arthur Young's insistence that rural community must give way to parcelled enclosure of commercial farmland. It doesn't make either of them any less right. Modern British history often feels like an attempted moderation of Victorian zeal that has quite simply Gone Too Far. Schama is probably the best writer of this cohort. What we require is a recognition of the brutal, but correct, logic birthed of Lancastrian industrialism: an economy, an empire, thrives on the strength of its best, which eats into the original, traditional, livelihoods of its weakest. This is uncomfortable rather than evil. The net result is in fact pretty miraculous.
December 9, 2020
I enjoyed this. I think what made this a good book is that instead of telling history through events, dates and lists of names, he tells stories through people, eye witnesses to history. The only downside is that he bounces around between England, India and Ireland so that at the end of one chapter, we are in late 19th century England but at the start of the next in early 19th century India. Because I was listening on Audible, I would sometimes become confused as to when things were happening. The other slight niggle is that I didn't have any context for the Indian part of the story. I have a very basic idea of Indian history so I struggled to relate to the stories being told. I think if I had a better grounding, the stories would have had more value.
As is, Schama's strength is in contextualising history, helping breathe life into a fading past coloured by memories of memories and preconceived notions of what the past was like. The past is a foreign country, and Schama speaks the language. He learned the language from the writings of individuals both great and small who lived through these events. For example, much of the early 20th century focuses on two figures, two sides of the same coin really. One was Winston Churchill and the other was Eric Blair (George Orwell). Their views, their contrasts, their similarities, their use of language to describe the world around them makes for a good frame to hang the story of British history through their time period. It was poignantly brought to an end with Blair's review of Churchill's book Their Finest Hour.
The more recent history was more of an essay than a detailed analysis. I found it interesting that Schama argues that Britain does not quite fit the European mould and if Europe is not happy to have Britain as is, than Britain should walk away. I wonder if he now regrets those words seeing as he was a Remainer during the referendum. So much has happened over the past 20 years. I arrived in England in 1998, aged 22, in love with an idea of England. That England still exists but it is disappearing. So much has changed so rapidly, but not just in Britain. In my hometown in America, so much has changed. I don't know if I was just too young to see the change during the ,80's and 90's or whether change really has accelerated. Now more than ever, we must remember the past. And I will leave you with a passage from George Orwell's 1984:
‘It is almost time for you to leave, comrade,’ he said to Julia. ‘Wait. The decanter is still half full.’ He filled the glasses and raised his own glass by the stem. ‘What shall it be this time?’ he said, still with the same faint suggestion of irony. ‘To the confusion of the Thought Police? To the death of Big Brother? To humanity? To the future?’ ‘To the past,’ said Winston. ‘The past is more important,’ agreed O’Brien gravely.
As is, Schama's strength is in contextualising history, helping breathe life into a fading past coloured by memories of memories and preconceived notions of what the past was like. The past is a foreign country, and Schama speaks the language. He learned the language from the writings of individuals both great and small who lived through these events. For example, much of the early 20th century focuses on two figures, two sides of the same coin really. One was Winston Churchill and the other was Eric Blair (George Orwell). Their views, their contrasts, their similarities, their use of language to describe the world around them makes for a good frame to hang the story of British history through their time period. It was poignantly brought to an end with Blair's review of Churchill's book Their Finest Hour.
The more recent history was more of an essay than a detailed analysis. I found it interesting that Schama argues that Britain does not quite fit the European mould and if Europe is not happy to have Britain as is, than Britain should walk away. I wonder if he now regrets those words seeing as he was a Remainer during the referendum. So much has happened over the past 20 years. I arrived in England in 1998, aged 22, in love with an idea of England. That England still exists but it is disappearing. So much has changed so rapidly, but not just in Britain. In my hometown in America, so much has changed. I don't know if I was just too young to see the change during the ,80's and 90's or whether change really has accelerated. Now more than ever, we must remember the past. And I will leave you with a passage from George Orwell's 1984:
‘It is almost time for you to leave, comrade,’ he said to Julia. ‘Wait. The decanter is still half full.’ He filled the glasses and raised his own glass by the stem. ‘What shall it be this time?’ he said, still with the same faint suggestion of irony. ‘To the confusion of the Thought Police? To the death of Big Brother? To humanity? To the future?’ ‘To the past,’ said Winston. ‘The past is more important,’ agreed O’Brien gravely.
November 5, 2023
Schama makes clear in the preface that his work is nothing like a textbook — and, indeed, it reads like a LongReads essay.
Schama manages to discuss the more nasty bits of the Empire, always using irony or British humour to tackle the hypocrisy at play. But, despite this, on more than one occasion, I had to roll my eyes at the author’s apparent gullibility (or the assumed naïveté of his audience).
It must be really tough when you’re British and just want to read about the country’s history out of innocent curiosity…and I sympathise. But too many times, the instances of stunning tone-deafness and cruelty came as a punch to the gut. Ordinarily, I’m very wary of rhetoric that whips up the emotions — but the facts of the matter in this case, of European colonialism, are unbearably nauseating.
By the end of the book, as infamous events are nearer in time and the hatred they inspire raw, Schama starts to focus entirely on lone figures — sometimes for as much as the length of a chapter. It’s a disarming tactic: to move from the objective, condemnable acts to discussion of their vague, psychological underpinnings among actors. For instance, the horrors of WWI for the colonies, or the lords’ slow begrudging retreat as sun finally sets on the empire, are explored via the personalities of an eccentric Churchill or the guilt-ridden Orwell. The devastation left in India in the wake of British exit is completely elided — except for a picture of a Hindu-Muslim riot (with no accompanying commentary on how such anarchic violence came about).
If nothing else, Schama’s work has whet my appetite for reading more history — including from the decolonisation angle, or simply more honest narrators. The only saving grace of Schama’s telling (and the Empire, at large) is the kindness and courage of a few souls whose sense of empathy and integrity saw no racial or national boundaries.
Schama manages to discuss the more nasty bits of the Empire, always using irony or British humour to tackle the hypocrisy at play. But, despite this, on more than one occasion, I had to roll my eyes at the author’s apparent gullibility (or the assumed naïveté of his audience).
It must be really tough when you’re British and just want to read about the country’s history out of innocent curiosity…and I sympathise. But too many times, the instances of stunning tone-deafness and cruelty came as a punch to the gut. Ordinarily, I’m very wary of rhetoric that whips up the emotions — but the facts of the matter in this case, of European colonialism, are unbearably nauseating.
By the end of the book, as infamous events are nearer in time and the hatred they inspire raw, Schama starts to focus entirely on lone figures — sometimes for as much as the length of a chapter. It’s a disarming tactic: to move from the objective, condemnable acts to discussion of their vague, psychological underpinnings among actors. For instance, the horrors of WWI for the colonies, or the lords’ slow begrudging retreat as sun finally sets on the empire, are explored via the personalities of an eccentric Churchill or the guilt-ridden Orwell. The devastation left in India in the wake of British exit is completely elided — except for a picture of a Hindu-Muslim riot (with no accompanying commentary on how such anarchic violence came about).
If nothing else, Schama’s work has whet my appetite for reading more history — including from the decolonisation angle, or simply more honest narrators. The only saving grace of Schama’s telling (and the Empire, at large) is the kindness and courage of a few souls whose sense of empathy and integrity saw no racial or national boundaries.
December 15, 2018
Understandably, it’s harder to evaluate recent history than previous ages. Most people know a lot about the times they’ve lived through, or their parents and grandparents lived through- albeit often from a narrow-ish viewpoint. The jury is not out, definitively, on what has not entirely passed from “current events” to scholarly study.
When I studied history at school, “modern history” started in 1789 with the French Revolution and ended in 1918 with the Armistice. I wonder why Schama chose an arbitrary date of 1776 for the beginning of this volume.
This, however, means that I did know a fair bit about most of this period of history (and, being Scottish, we had to study two versions- for example, the 1832 Reform Act (E&W) and its counterpart the 1832 Scottish Reform Act. (Two textbooks, two opinions!)
I enjoyed the inclusion of women and their gradual emancipation and admission to the professions, the contrasting activities of Florence Nightingale and the more practical and courageous Mary Seacole in the Crimean War, the latter, like Dr Elsie Inglis in WWI (from Edinburgh) having to finance her own service, the eccentric Annie Besant, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and (briefly) Sophia Jex-Blake in her struggle to get a medical education in Edinburgh (still a moderate challenge in 1969-75 for women, but without the dung slinging).
The comparison between Winston Churchill and Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) is interesting. Churchill was certainly a good war leader, but a blunderer in peacetime- just as well Twitter hadn’t been invented!
The postwar period is rather skated over, as I said, but we have so much information about the world after printing and literacy that selection has to be made.
When I studied history at school, “modern history” started in 1789 with the French Revolution and ended in 1918 with the Armistice. I wonder why Schama chose an arbitrary date of 1776 for the beginning of this volume.
This, however, means that I did know a fair bit about most of this period of history (and, being Scottish, we had to study two versions- for example, the 1832 Reform Act (E&W) and its counterpart the 1832 Scottish Reform Act. (Two textbooks, two opinions!)
I enjoyed the inclusion of women and their gradual emancipation and admission to the professions, the contrasting activities of Florence Nightingale and the more practical and courageous Mary Seacole in the Crimean War, the latter, like Dr Elsie Inglis in WWI (from Edinburgh) having to finance her own service, the eccentric Annie Besant, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and (briefly) Sophia Jex-Blake in her struggle to get a medical education in Edinburgh (still a moderate challenge in 1969-75 for women, but without the dung slinging).
The comparison between Winston Churchill and Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) is interesting. Churchill was certainly a good war leader, but a blunderer in peacetime- just as well Twitter hadn’t been invented!
The postwar period is rather skated over, as I said, but we have so much information about the world after printing and literacy that selection has to be made.
March 14, 2024
I really enjoyed this third volume. Rather than focusing on queens, kings, and wars - it turned intellectual. Here we get modern enlightenment liberty from the feminist Wollstonecraft and later the economist, J.S. Mill. He discusses slavery, the Victorian empire building. The lofty goals of utilitarian and cultural toleration clashed with greed, profit, and conquest. In the end the conquest spirit won out and the consequences were poverty, famine, and destruction.
All histories need to focus on and select some pieces. I enjoyed the narrative choices. Comparing the consequences of British imperialism with the famines in Ireland and India. The final chapter told the story of the 20th century from two perspectives: George Orwell and Winston Churchill. Two totally different views on the role of empire in the world. Yet, in the face of the threat of fascism both agreed completely. For all of Churchill's failures (violently breaking up labor strikes, Gallipoli, failures as the chancellor of the exchequer, and a white supremacy world view justifying imperial conquest) he was right about Hitler, and he was right to vociferously and violently oppose him. No Churchill, and the author speculates, given the experience with Vichy France, a collaborationist English government would lead to the round up of British Jews, the elimination of the British Navy, and the triumph of Hitler on the continent and fascism throughout the world. The author, Schama, who is Jewish, touchingly says "this is no small thing."
All histories need to focus on and select some pieces. I enjoyed the narrative choices. Comparing the consequences of British imperialism with the famines in Ireland and India. The final chapter told the story of the 20th century from two perspectives: George Orwell and Winston Churchill. Two totally different views on the role of empire in the world. Yet, in the face of the threat of fascism both agreed completely. For all of Churchill's failures (violently breaking up labor strikes, Gallipoli, failures as the chancellor of the exchequer, and a white supremacy world view justifying imperial conquest) he was right about Hitler, and he was right to vociferously and violently oppose him. No Churchill, and the author speculates, given the experience with Vichy France, a collaborationist English government would lead to the round up of British Jews, the elimination of the British Navy, and the triumph of Hitler on the continent and fascism throughout the world. The author, Schama, who is Jewish, touchingly says "this is no small thing."
February 15, 2020
3.5 stars actually. More readable than the previous 2 volumes, probably because the material was more familiar, thus compensating for the very broad sweep and the occasionally odd choice of viewpoint (poets and writers in this one). Some factual errors: the Spanish POUM of George Orwell fame were communists, not anarchists. Operation Torch was the invasion of North Africa, not Italy. And some questionable opinions: Churchill is mildly criticised for advocating, as First Sea Lord in 1914, that the Royal Navy's ships be run on oil, not coal, thus condemning Britain to a dependence on Middle Eastern oil. However, oil-fuelled ships were faster and had a longer range...….and coal-fuelled ships were still dependent on vulnerable coaling stations. And a motorised army and air force would also need oil, coal-fuelled aeroplanes being somewhat impractical. And a section on British "butcher" generals of WWI names Haig (obvs) and...…. Sir Henry Wilson. Eh ??? There are many reasons to regard Wilson's contribution to WWI as somewhat unfortunate for Britain, but his brief spell as GOC IV Corps is hardly the most striking. And there were far worse butchers and blunderers than him: Haking, Hunter-Weston, French, Gough, Mahon, Stopford (cont. page 94). So: generally a good read but sometimes a bit short on detail.
December 29, 2018
A fascinating history of - well, Britain, from just after the Jacobite Rebellions to (almost) the present day. Simon Schama, as ever, gives a meticulous picture of the developing Industrial Revolution, to Victorian empire and the Britain that survived two World Wars and post-war dramas. Interestingly, the First World War is almost bypassed, told from the point of view of the country that lost nearly a whole generation of young men. The Second World War gives away Schama's devotion to Winston Churchill, most of this part being a complete biography of Churchill's life. For me, that was interesting, seeing how he developed into the orator of those famous speeches and why he was so determined that "we shall NEVER surrender!"
Follow that with the Iron Lady (Margaret Thatcher, to non-British readers) and so on up to Blair and the Millennium. This book proves why I always tell people to take an interest in history - it explains why and how we got to where we are today.
Now I'd like to go back and watch the series again!
Follow that with the Iron Lady (Margaret Thatcher, to non-British readers) and so on up to Blair and the Millennium. This book proves why I always tell people to take an interest in history - it explains why and how we got to where we are today.
Now I'd like to go back and watch the series again!
October 12, 2022
What is written is pretty good but EXTREMELY misleading title. It focuses far too much on individuals, skims or skips over big events and ‘tries’ to cram the last 70 years into half a chapter. For example, more attention is given to Churchill’s childhood than the entirety of the 60s and 70s, combined. Post war immigration i don’t think is even mentioned. I don’t think the Troubles are either although I gave up after the thatcher stuff as it was just so frustratingly brief. Scotland wales and Northern Ireland are ignored too.
I know it’s hard to cover so much history but no one forced him to do this. When you compare this book to the depth of the first and to a lesser extent the second book the difference is staggering.
I don’t think this book is even a good intro/skeleton framework for British history as it’s all just too brief. It reads like a collection of articles or essays about British individuals rather a narrative history of Britain. And even if that’s what it is trying to do I would argue it’s too brief for that also. Disappointing and frustrating.
I know it’s hard to cover so much history but no one forced him to do this. When you compare this book to the depth of the first and to a lesser extent the second book the difference is staggering.
I don’t think this book is even a good intro/skeleton framework for British history as it’s all just too brief. It reads like a collection of articles or essays about British individuals rather a narrative history of Britain. And even if that’s what it is trying to do I would argue it’s too brief for that also. Disappointing and frustrating.
August 11, 2021
Giving all of the major facts of this large of a period would result in a dry read. But this book attempts no such thing. Instead, the author astutely focuses on several major trends, and illustrates each with thoughtfully selected vignettes that bring the history to life. A lot here is relevant to any age, including:
--The temptation to falsely romanticize the past (widely perpetrated in Britain even by the early 1800s).
--The debates over the nature of representative government and the basic rights of men and women.
--The blistering and often violent reactions of the privileged against those who dare to question whether those privileges have any legitimacy.
--The callousness of many when facing less-powerful foreign peoples.
--The equally harmful well-meaning but inept blundering of many others when facing those same foreign peoples.
--The temptation to falsely romanticize the past (widely perpetrated in Britain even by the early 1800s).
--The debates over the nature of representative government and the basic rights of men and women.
--The blistering and often violent reactions of the privileged against those who dare to question whether those privileges have any legitimacy.
--The callousness of many when facing less-powerful foreign peoples.
--The equally harmful well-meaning but inept blundering of many others when facing those same foreign peoples.
December 30, 2025
I just finished the entire series so I’m considering all three books, especially the last in the series. The first two are full of expected information in Schama’s eloquent prose, but as the periods grew more modern, more information was available and the history gets more diverse. He explains the political and social landscape through the eyes of naturalists, poets, women, and people of color, a refreshing change from focus on monarchy. His explanation of the early 20th century focuses on Churchill (expected) and George Orwell. It’s a good read.
The only negative thing I have to say is I did not like his use of the ‘m’ word to describe Mary Seacole. He is clearly writing this in 2001-02 and I’m pretty sure that word was considered offensive at that point. I can’t understand why he used it when his writing was clearly trying to be respectful. But anyway…
The only negative thing I have to say is I did not like his use of the ‘m’ word to describe Mary Seacole. He is clearly writing this in 2001-02 and I’m pretty sure that word was considered offensive at that point. I can’t understand why he used it when his writing was clearly trying to be respectful. But anyway…
September 30, 2018
Two things draw me again and again to Mr. Schama's works.
1. The wit and elegance that characterizes so much of his writings.
2. The intimacy and balance which he honors his subjects with.
This was a period of history that I knew relatively little about. So it is a delight to read a book that delves so deeply, so boldly into events and people that I really knew so little about.
I am also very appreciative that Mr. Schama is honest about the mistakes and triumphs of the history of the nation. I know of plenty of historians who would be quick to gloss over a mistake or failure, and it is nice to see that he does not. And of course, the balanced, realistic depiction he highlights for everyone from Victoria to George Orwell is a delight in and of itself.
1. The wit and elegance that characterizes so much of his writings.
2. The intimacy and balance which he honors his subjects with.
This was a period of history that I knew relatively little about. So it is a delight to read a book that delves so deeply, so boldly into events and people that I really knew so little about.
I am also very appreciative that Mr. Schama is honest about the mistakes and triumphs of the history of the nation. I know of plenty of historians who would be quick to gloss over a mistake or failure, and it is nice to see that he does not. And of course, the balanced, realistic depiction he highlights for everyone from Victoria to George Orwell is a delight in and of itself.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews